The vast amount have no cure or even treatment.Why is so hard to understand the body and cure illnesses?
>>16918106It isn't as simple as pepe gets disease pepe dies from disease. it's more like pepe gets disease, disease causes thing in body to happen, thing in body happening causes a chain reaction of other things happening and it becomes exponential
>>16918106a complete explanation of the body is the harder problem; we don't need to understand how a treatment works to know that it works.in general, the body is struggling to persist at every moment and everything in the world and the laws of physics are conspiring to kill it. so it's pretty remarkable that we're alive at all.
>>16918106>Why is so hard to understand the body and cure illnesses?Because the body is organic while scientific thinking (in its current form, at least) is mechanistic. The body is not really a composition of parts and it can't be broken down into orthogonal factors. You can try to study some nominal "parts" in isolation and under controlled conditions, but you won't necessarily get meaningful results, hence the distinction between "in vivo" and "in vitro".Ideally (for humans), a system would be amenable to different levels of description depending on the desired granularity of analysis. On any level of abstraction, you want the observable interactions between components to be accounted for in terms of the individual component descriptions for that level. Human system engineers are specifically instructed to create systems that abide this principle, but as soon as you introduce a system to the real world, it starts to mutate (i.e. humans start to change it) in unprincipled ways to work around limitations and appease the ever-changing demands. So sooner or later, you end up with weird dependencies/interactions between components and correspondingly weird behaviors that happen under oddly specific conditions. Even human systems are impossible to fully explain without getting into messy low-level details and keeping track of the way unintended consequences cross levels of abstraction and bubble up.If even human systems, designed to be humanly comprehensible, gradually become humanly incomprehensible under evolution, what do you expect from organic systems that are unprincipled to begin with? Sure, the body seems to have different levels of organization, from the molecular level to cell so to organs, but their stratification is an illusion.
>>16918206In a thousand years this is the kind of grave that historians will spend entire half hours of their lives trying to justify why it was caused by religion.
>>16918287>In a thousand years this is the kind of grave that historians will spend entire half hours of their lives trying to justify why it was caused by religion.You mean like the worship of Kap-eh-Taahl, the traditional religion of Ammer-Ka? That's a strikingly original idea, Mr. Lem.
>>16918306It seems that the christian cross evolved into an S with two vertical lines.
>>16918416No, Protestantism has always been that way.
>>16918106Because the hospitals are currently controlled by medieval minded old-freak roasties who give meropenem to every child admitted to the inpatient wards.They don't care about "discoveries" or "science", they just want the money and total lack of any new thought.
>>16918238So is just a much more complex mechanistic system, but it should be possible to model it somehow.
>>16918531filtered
>>16918531in complex systems theory, biology would be a form of organized complexity.you could frame is as an argument from ignorance on both sides, but those types of systems seem to have some special properties."emergence" is kind of spooky, philosofag redditors get upset about it, but it seems like a straightforward to say how the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.
>>16918106How do you know the vast amount have no treatment you fucking bollocks? Where's your evidence for this? Fucking idiot.
>>16918666You are just granting yourself arbitrary boxes. The configuration of parts is never greater than the sum. It does not matter how they arrange and rearrange because each is laden with the next. So if there were a condition of n+1 > n there is also a condition of n+1 < n because n+1 by definition cannot create itself and so n is superior. I don't know how retards like you even exist. Beyond that, can you empirically demonstrate the universe is more than 1 minute old? Why are you talking about the sum of parts when you baselessly believe a series of eternal universes are somehow connected - but not really because you can't visit any other time = to justify why you are here right now. Why should the universe care about you so much? What an ego trip honestly. You just aren't that important sugar tits.
>>16918671>what about global skepticism, huh? you can't prove you're not dreaming!trannys are mad
>>16918671ok the second part was stupid but I'll respond to the first part:there's different kinds of mereological relationships. it's not all simple abstractions, tranny. people will say ontological reduction vs bridge law reduction, maybe kinds too. we can agree with the ontological claim everything is the same stuff, but that's very different from eliminating biology and chemistry to only physics.trivial skepticism aside, we don't have bridge laws for stuff. and even if we could do it, it wouldn't be useful or practical.
>>16918667Google clanker
>>16918671filtered
>>16918531>So is just a much more complex mechanistic systemWrong. If you follow certain design principles, you can make arbitrarily complex systems that are still humanly comprehensible. The problem is that human thought can only deal with complexity by factorizing it and abstracting it away. It corresponds to the way humans build things: level by level, part by part - that's a mechanistic system. But an organic system doesn't arise that way and can't be fully understood that way. It's a very tangled sort of complexity where reductionism starts to fail.
>>16918666>"emergence" is kind of spooky, philosofag redditors get upset about it, but it seems like a straightforward to say how the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.It's moot to talk about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts in this case because there are no proper parts as such.
>>16918821Well, dont the laws of physics and chemistry apply to a system like the body as well?As long as there are constraints in reality (laws) it will be possible to factorize and abstract what is going on in the human body to some degree.
>>16918846It's clear that you have some low IQ ideology to push and aren't actually comprehending anything told to you.
>>16918822I don't know what do say about that. can you say more? usually people go the other way and are skeptical about the existence of wholes.there's no parts just in biology, or universally?I have heard mereological holism is like: anything can be a whole, me and the sun could be a whole. a whole is just a set that could include anything. it's like a positivism about wholes. but then I guess the problem is explaining hierarchies, like how cells form tissues, and tissues go on to form organs.
>>16918849I'm talking about modeling biology. If you take a machine apart, you can put it back together later and it will work, because that's how it was conceived and constructed in the first place: in a piecemeal fashion. Your average biology student can partition a frog, but he knows better than to think he can put it back together again. If you cut up a living thing, you lose something that can't be recovered. The same thing is true on a conceptual level when all your "parts" are intertwined with respect to any aspect worth analyzing. But can still reason about it, obviously, but you lose relevant information when you partition it or abstract over any details.>I guess the problem is explaining hierarchies, like how cells form tissues, and tissues go on to form organs.But this is just head canon. What you have, more objectively, are patterns of organization on different scales. The essence of a pattern is the gestalt.
>>16918863So the two positions are:>the whole is greater than the sum on its partsand>parts don't existbut both would explain/predict why you can't reverse engineer biology. so they wouldn't they both agree on that point? the difference would have to be conceptual or practical.
>>16919027Neither statement predicts or explains anything, but my statement is substantiated by reference to some reality you can't get around regardless of how you conceptualize things, meanwhile yours really is just head canon.
>>16919030just calling it reality is not an argument though.say somebody loses their arm, we would intuitively say that they they lost a part of their body. or what? parts don't exist so they're a new person now? that seems like head cannon.
>>16919033>just calling it realityI didn't "just call it reality". Looks like you ran out of context window. Moving on.
>>16919035yeah, I got you on that arm thing.I would leave too.
>>16919038>I got you on that arm thing.Your "argument" literally starts from "intuitively we would say", so not only did you fail to contradict my point (let alone refute it), but you managed to phrase your idiotic retort in a way that effectively concedes it.
>>16919040wait I thought you were leaving? oh shit! you're bad now? hostage crisis averted!yes I referenced intuitions because it's about the burden of proof.
>my head canon says my head canon is true so the burden of proof is on everyone who questions itI don't care, retard. See >>16919030>Neither statement predicts or explains anything, but my statement is substantiated by reference to some reality you can't get around regardless of how you conceptualize things, meanwhile yours really is just head canon.
>>16919043>reality agrees with me but it's not empirical or predictive in any waywell God agrees with me and God say you're wrong. deal with it, retard.
No matter what your context window limits and lack of object permanence make you believe, the following posts still exist and your mumbling doesn't challenge them in any aspect:>>16918238>>16918821>>16918863
>>16919046what's funny is we actually agree for the most part but then I just asked you some questions and you exploded.I really got you with that arm thing, huh? I didn't mean to hurt your feefees. I was actually a good faith question.maybe take a break and go cry for a bit and come back later if you want to talk again.
>I really got you with that arm thingYour "argument" literally starts from "intuitively we would say", so not only did you fail to contradict my point (let alone refute it), but you managed to phrase your idiotic retort in a way that effectively concedes it. What got me is realizing that you're either a LLM or otherwise subhuman, given your severe context window limit and lack of object permanence.
Low IQs can't grasp that reading some nominal parts into an organic whole doesn't make its behavior describable in terms of individually characterized parts.
>>16919072is this attempting to answer the question?lol you're such a passive aggressive little shit.what's behaviour have to do with it? you're flailing.
>mentally ill retard continues (You)ing me and failing incoherently
>>16919090oh you're not responding to me directly now and that's supposed to be some kind of powerplay.you really are a complete fag lolare you actually a woman?
The mentally ill retard is forced to continue addressing me and begging for my attention and validation.
>>16919094>I'm finealright dude. I'll leave you alone.this is why women and fags can't do science. it's all passive aggressive nonsense.
>>16918106Because many diseases are automatically treated by the immune system, and doctors often treat the symptoms to buy time for the immune system to do its job.
>>16918238I don't disagree, per se, with what is written here but for some reason it reads in an extremely faggy way.Like some cuckademian who desperately tries to come up with some kind of word salad why the vaccines could not possibly hurt somebody while assuring as that qualitatively inferior pharmaceutical "research" into hard drugs is scientifically valid.
>>16919254Then let's see you say it better, nigger. If you don't maximize density you just hit the character limit.
